Which coins would you recommend to someone wanting to lose as much as posssible?

[Nutmeg Coin]

Anyone who did business with Numisgroup lost serious money. One collector traded a bunch of certified gold coins worth over a quarter of a million for a "rare" Morgan that ended up being worth less than a thousand dollars:

 

"Martineau also obtained an 1893-O Morgan Silver Dollar graded MS-65 ("deep mirror proof like") which he received in a trade with Numismatic Asset Strategies, Inc. for 64 Double Eagle $20 Liberty coins of assorted certified grades. The 64 coins had been purchased by Martineau from the First National Reserve in Beaumont, Texas for the approximate sum of $269,000. Martineau testified that he told a Numisgroup salesperson named Brian Mills that he wished to sell the 64 coins and Mills stated that while he could not sell the coins for him, he suggested a trade. Martineau testified that Mills told him "the 1893-O Silver Dollar was extremely desirable, very valuable, and that he could arrange a trade for my gold pieces for this particular coin, and that it was to my financial advantage to do so, because this coin, the 1893-O Silver Dollar, was worth more than my whole collection of $20 gold pieces." Mills told Martineau that the 1893-O Silver Dollar was worth $454,000.

 

"Unlike the 64 Double Eagle $20 Liberty coins which were certified and encapsulated in plastic containers, the 1893-O Silver Dollar was not certified and was bound in lucite. Nervous that the 1893-O Silver Dollar was not certified stating the grade of MS-65 ("deep mirror proof like") as he was told on the phone, Martineau attempted to return the coin ten days after receiving it. However, Numismatic Asset Strategies, Inc. would not accept the return of the coin because Martineau's account carried an outstanding balance. Significantly, the 1893-O Silver Dollar was subsequently graded by Montgomery as AU-58 and appraised at $650 by Swiatek."

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/170/340/2402874/

 

 

[coinman1794]

What was the outcome of that 2003 Lincoln cent that PCGS originally graded MS70?

 

Chris

 

If I recall correctly, when it developed a spot, PCGS paid out around $15,000 in guarantee money (whatever the purchaser paid on Teletrade when it originally sold minus some negligible amount that an MS69 was worth), and it's now in an MS69RD holder.

 

Update: Here is the link to the coin at PCGS. Sold for $15,120 on Teletrade in Sept 2006, was reslabbed and downgraded to an MS69RD and is now given a PCGS priceguide value of $90.

 

OK, I'm confused. I could SWEAR the Lincoln PCGS graded MS70 was from the early 60s. They eventually had to buy the coin back....it also seems this happened way before 2006 as well....maybe the late 90s (?). I must be having a "senior" moment.

 

jom

 

It was a 1963 PCGS-PF70 that spotted in the holder and was bought back by PCGS for around $39,000, if I recall correctly.

[coinman1794]

Example the 1914/3 Buffalo nickel is no longer considered to be an overdate. There have been other varieties that with further research have been delisted. They would no longer covered under the guarantee.

 

My understanding was that there were concerns and disagreements concerning whether the 1914/3 Buffalo Nickel was an overdate, but that no definitive consensus exists. Indeed, I think Tom Delorey posted ATS that it will continue to be listed in the cherrypicker's guide.

 

This is also my understanding of the current status of the 1914/3 dies (plural because this is not simply one die, there are no less than half a dozen plus affected dies with a similar anomaly. It may be that the overdate (if not simply a very coincidental defect) appeared on a hub, and every die manufactured from that hub shows some evidence of the overdate. Hub varieties are not considered true varieties, and thus it would not be an overdate, if that's the case.

[RWB]

....depends on how many working hubs are used in a year.

 

Obviously, if there was only one working hub that year, then all dies will have some remnant of the imperfection. Visibility depends on the quality of hub-to-die transfer and aggressiveness of final lapping before the working die was put into service.

[bourse28]

expensive classic coins especially if they go bad in holder

[mackbrass]

Buy as many ungraded unc morgans as possible from as many dealers as you can. Many dealers price raw coins based on what they think they may grade at and use the red book prices to sell them at as if they are actually graded.

 

Another way to loose money fast is to buy certified coins slabbed by any grading company that only charges 5 bucks to grade a coin. You know there is a problem when their slabbs snap together. A 67 morgan from them is really an AU58 from NGC or PCGS.

 

 

[leeg]

Interesting that PCGS hasnt made a "major" mistake and buyback in 7 years...

Or they haven't published a list of their major mistakes in over 7 years. When was that PCGS posting published?

 

PCGS Grading Guarantee Update: David Hall - December 4, 2009.

 

 

[coinman1794]

....depends on how many working hubs are used in a year.

 

Obviously, if there was only one working hub that year, then all dies will have some remnant of the imperfection. Visibility depends on the quality of hub-to-die transfer and aggressiveness of final lapping before the working die was put into service.

 

That is correct. It appears that a number of dies (6+) show a form of the "overdate," and a larger number do not.

 

http://www.varietyvista.com/Photographic%20Study%20of%20the%201914-3%20Nickel.htm

 

http://www.varietyvista.com/Theories%20for%20the%20Origination%20of%20the%201914-3%20Nickel.htm